Advertisement

Disability Research Ethics

A Bedrock of Disability Rights
  • Anne GoodEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD 2006) has the potential to transform ethical practice in disability research across the globe. This chapter outlines the current knowledge base in the field of ethics in disability research, especially with regard to the UN Convention, its contents and their implementation. The chapter concludes with some proposals on ways to ensure that the Convention’s potential is fully realized.

It is not always the case that research which investigates the lives of disabled people is conducted in accordance with normal ethical principles and the Convention explicitly addresses this problem. Disability research often presents particular challenges when aiming to achieve full operationalization in this field, of the normal core research principles with regard to ethics, such as informed consent, confidentiality, privacy, respect, and equality. These requirements are not always met since researchers, along with research funders and managers, may not be well trained or informed in the field. Indeed, some practitioners overtly avoid ethical requirements because of their resource implications. When these principles are inadequately addressed, the resulting research is of reduced quality and can damage trust in the research process among disabled people. There is a danger that poor-quality research conducted without careful attention to ethical practice leads to a poor knowledge base underpinning changes in policy and service provision for disabled people.

This chapter discusses the impact of the UNCRPD on ethics in disability research, both in terms of its potential and the progress to date. Strategies for increasing the scope and pace of change are also proposed. The author has several decades of active disability research experience focusing on global, European, and national levels. This work has included contributing to the development of guidelines for good ethical practice in disability research, with the WHO ICF FDRG and the UN Washington City Group on Disability Statistics during the period 2003–2015, as well as for the European Union and the Irish government (2002–2007). Lessons have been drawn from this work, and general principles are accompanied by proposals for future development.

Keywords

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) Human rights disability Medical model Social model Vulnerability Privacy Respect Consent Research literacy Research ethics committees/boards 

References

  1. Bickenbach J (2011) The world report on disability. Disabil Soc 26(5):655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brady G, Good A (2005) Methodological preparations for an Irish post census national disability survey in 2006. Paper presented at Washington Group on Disability Statistics 5th meeting, Rio de Janeiro, September 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/otheract/citygroup/products/citygroup5/WG5_Good_Brady.doc. Accessed 4 July 2019
  3. Dench S, Iphofen R, Huws U (2004) An EU Code of Ethics for Socio-Economic Research. Report 412. Institute for Employment Studies: BrightonGoogle Scholar
  4. Good A (2002) Ethical guidelines for disability research. National Disability Authority, DublinGoogle Scholar
  5. Good A, McAnaney D (2003) Methodological preparations for the first Irish national disability survey. NDA, DublinGoogle Scholar
  6. Government of Canada (2015) Research ethics boards: guidelines for researchers. www.pre.ethics.gc.ca
  7. Hirst R (2000) The international disability rights movement. www.leeds.ac.uk
  8. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (2001) World Health Orgaisation: Geneva. www.who.int
  9. Iphofen R (2009) Ethical decision making in social research: a practical guide. Palgrave, HampshireGoogle Scholar
  10. Kitchen R (2000) The researched opinions on research: disabled people and disability research. Disabil Soc 15(1):25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kostansjek N (2011) The use of the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) as a conceptual framework and common language for disability statistics and health. BMC Public Health 11(4):S3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kostansjek N, Good A, Madden RM, Ustun TB, Chatterji S, Matteus CD, Officer AM (2013) Counting disability global and national estimation. Disabil Rehabil 35(13):1065–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lemmy Nuwagaba E, Rule P (2015) Navigating the ethical maze in disability research: ethical contestations in an African context. Disabil Soc 30(2):255–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leonardi M, Bickenbach J, Ustun TB, Kostansjek N, Chatterji S (2006) The definition of disability: what’s in a name. Lancet 368(9543):1219–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leonardi M, Chatterji S, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Hollenweger J, Üstün TB, Kostanjsek N, Newton A, Björck-Åkesson E, Francescutti C, Alonso J, Matucci M, Samoilescu A, Good A, Cieza A, Svestkova O, Bullinger M, Marincek C, Burger H, Raggi A, Bickenbach J (2010) Integrating research into policy planning: MHADIE policy recommendations. Disabil Rehabil 32(Suppl 1):S139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Madans J, Loeb ME, Altman BA (2011) Measuring disability and monitoring the UN convention on the rights of persons with disability: the work of the Washington group on disability statistics. BMC Public Health 11(Suppl 4):4.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-S4-S4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McFarlane J, Hughes RB, Nosek MA (2001) Abuse assessment screen disability (AAS-D); measuring frequency, type and perpetrator of abuse towards women with physical disabilities. J Women’s Health Gender Based Med 10(9):861–866. Pubmed PMID 11747680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mont D (2017) Training on how to ask “disability” questions on censuses and surveys, in www.washingtongroup-disability.com/washington-group-blog/. Date 13 October 2017. Accessed Oct 2017
  19. O’Donovan M, Good A (2010) Towards comparability of data: using the ICF to map the contrasting definitions of disability in Irish surveys and census, 2000–2006. Disabil Rehabil 32(Suppl 1):S9–S16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oliver M (2013) The social model of disability: thirty years on. Disabil Soc 28(7):1024–1026.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.818773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Riddle C (2016) Human rights, disability and capabilities. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Schneider M, Hurst R, Miller J, Ustun TB (2003) The role of the environment in the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Disabil Rehabil 25(11–12):588–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shakespeare T (2013) Disability rights and wrongs revisited. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation. (UPIAS) and The Disability Aliance (1976) Available inNational Disability Arts Collection and Archive the-NDACA.orgGoogle Scholar
  25. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006. UN New York.Google Scholar
  26. WHO (2017) WHO code of ethics and professional conduct. https://www.who.int/
  27. WHO (2018) How to use the ICF: draft practical manual for using the ICF. https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/
  28. WHO Research Ethics Review Committee (2018) Informed consent template for research involving children, qualitative studies. https://www.who.int/

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chairperson Disability Research HubDisability Federation of Ireland (DFI)DublinIreland

Personalised recommendations